Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Really? Give me some examples of "legitimate innovation", please. Because I'm really curious as to what you consider innovation? iOS isn't innovative? Pinch-to-zoom, bounce-at-scroll-end, inertial flick scrolling, no keyboard, no-scroll-wheel-no-nav-keys, simple app install-deinstall, tap-and-hold to rearrange, that all existed together in one integrated package? Real innovation only seems "obvious" in hindsight. The best proof is the huge slew of criticisms which came out about the iPhone when it first came out. All the moaning about the shit it was missing or didn't do but absolutely needed.

Before the iPhone, the BlackberryOS was considered the nadir of handheld computing. And Android back then looked a heck of a lot like a Blackberry OS. Now that paradigm considered a backwater. The move to mouse+gui wasn't that natural an extension from keyboard+tty, it was innovation. The move from the Blackberry+Palm+WinCE paradigm to iOS wasn't a "natural extension". It only seems natural in hindsight.

First: all these comments calling Jobs a "salesman" and "marketer" don't understand the first thing about Jobs. You can market and sell crappy products for only so long. The MacBook Air, iPod, iPhone, and iPad weren't successful because of the marketing; they were successful because they put the user experience first, they made complex technology easy to use, fun to interact with, and vicerally beautiful to hold. Building stuff like that isn't marketing. Building stuff like that is hardware design+software integration, attention to detail, focus on quality, and precision manufacturing on a scale not seen before. Companies can't copy the MacBook Air and iPhone/iOS experience because they lack that coordination and attention to detail.

Second: see above. Hundreds of companies assumed that all they needed to beat the iPod was to "have a pretty plastic shell" and hit all the bullet points, add a few more (FM Radio! AM Radio tuner! Removable Battery!) and they'd make sales. They didn't. Replace iPod with iMac, iPhone, iPad and you have the same scenario.

Third: Repeat after me: design is not separate from functionality. Design isn't how a thing looks, design is how it works. Which is why despite the fact that the Dell Streak supposedly had all the features needed to be a "iPad killer", it turned into an abortion. Why? It worked like crap. Why is the iPad2 selling in such ridiculous numbers? Because it works! If you took an iPad2, and installed an iOS themed Honeycomb on it, it would work OK, but it wouldn't be great. With iOS, the iPad works amazingly well. The Android market is a joke, very few people I know who own android phones have purchased more than a dozen apps. Everyone I know who has an iPhone has a dozen favorite apps, and some have purchased hundreds of apps. Why? Because it works. Functionality is what the design of the iPad2.

Uh, you're comparing Apple's totally fucked up product line-up, supply chain, and operations from the 1980's when they were hemorraging money like a stuck pig to the problems they're having meeting unprecedented demand right now? Are you kidding me? Apple's supply chain management and operations are why they have margins way above any other PC or tablet manufacturer. And despite those margins, other makers can't sell similar devices without taking a loss.

Yes, Apple has had trouble keeping the pipeline filled, but that's because of absolutely unprecedented demand. Do you remember the problems Nintendo had producing the Wii? The Wii doesn't even come with a cutting edge screen, yet for more the a year Nintendo couldn't meet demand. It took more than a year to increase production from 1.8M to 2.4M. And this for a device which has only 1 constraining component: the CPU+graphics chips. Apple managed to meet iPad demand less than 6 months after the introduction, and even faster for the iPad 2 despite demand being greater than 4M/month. This with a device that has 3 constraining components: memory, display, and cpu+graphics chips. Apple has gone from 0% market share to 5% total market share in worldwide phones in a little over 4 years. Remember the shit Motorola took for being unable to meed RAZR demand for months? And Motorola's been making cell phones since cells phones existed. Every company I've seen that has had a crazy popular hit has trouble meeting demand. Some take a year or more to catch up. Apple takes a couple of months at most.

Right, ignored by "serious business". got any proof of that? Why would Apple care? They're growing at 6x the rate of the rest of the computing industry. Stop living in the past and look at the present.

iPad sold 500,000 units after one week. That's a little more than 70,000 units a day. And if you consider that in the five days after the weekend, Apple sold 200,000 units. That's 40,000 a day. Not quite so impressive. I'd bet that all the Netbooks combined sell at least 40,000 units per day.

Doing some quick googling, I get guesstimates of yearly total netbook sales between 22M and 30M. And since 40k units a day is around 15M a year, iPad is selling within a 2x factor of ALL netbooks sales. Still think it's a flop? ref

Of if that measure doesn't work, how about total monetary sales values? 40k per day at $600 per unit is around $9B, which is around 9% of all portable PC sales in 2009, and around half of all mini-note and ultraportable pc sales ($18B). Still think the iPad's a flop? ref

BTW, the Motorola Droid (considered a pretty good success for Motorola during the first few months of sales sold around 1M units the first 74 days it was out (which went for $200, less than half the price of an iPad). That's around 14k a day since you seem to be a bit math deficient.

Name one cell phone, computer, or similar device that sold 300,000 times over on the first day that was considered a failure.

The interesting thing is that Apple sold 300,000 units in it's first weekend--this is after the device had been available for pre-order for one month. So it took Apple one month to sell 300,000 units--about 1,000 units a day.

So name one cell phone, computer, or similar device that sold 300,000 units in one month that was considered a success.

Strawman alert! So which is it- 40k a day or 1k a day? Up above, you deride the drop from 70k/day to 40k/day. Now it's suddenly 1k/day (before people could even try it out, mind you). I fail to see how you convert pre-sales volume into foward sales volume. Especially when the full 3G version isn't out for sale AND sales are US only.

But that's okay. Just sit in your corner, hug your iPad, and keep repeating: "The iPad is successful! The iPad is successful!" It'll make you feel better.

The simple truth is that Psystar DID have to use an image method to perform the installs, and so this should be considered a minimum necessary step towards exercising First Sale rights to do as you like with something you've purchased; but I do agree that they should have been required to use an image based on the same version of OSX that would appear in the box. First Sale law permits you to modify things you've purchased. If I am not permitted to modify Apple software, then arguably I can't even use it. And if I'm not permitted to use images to deploy OSX, then I'm certainly not even going to consider using it in the enterprise. If Psystar isn't allowed to use a custom image, then I must assume I'm not allowed to either.

Good points and I totally agree with your points on the validity of the First Sale law and it's necessity. However, you're missing a crucial point. Pystar not only modified OSX, (as is allowed for personal use), but it sold this modified derivative product, which is not protected by the First Sale law. You can use a modified product, but you can't sell. That's why Pystar lost, and lost big. I personally think that these and other copyright restrictions are too strict, but it is pretty clear in this case (summary judgement and all that) that Pystar broke it.

By that same logic, the iTunes store should have been crushed by rivals (amazon, walmart, emusic et al) in 2007. Guess what? Didn't happen that way. I think that android will gain marketshare, but most of it will be from Symbian and WinCE Mobile (or whatever they're calling it this year). Apple will also gain market share at an equal or greater pace, fueled by the advantage of the app store. Focused competition will beat apple (remember Palm vs Newton?), but unfocused, dispersed competition is going to have a hard time beating Apple at their own game.

1) Adding more screws costs MORE money, not less. It changes the adhesion between the components from a press-fit|tab-fit|glue-fit to a much stronger/deeper connection between components. Being able to "pop" stuff out is design not for strength but economy and convenience.

2) The reason you didn't get it right is because you're a crappy engineer, not because it "doesn't fit together that well".

3) Wiring without the tape-stabilizers can easily come loose due to jarring due to use and expansion/contraction due to temperature changes. It looks cheap to morons but costs a shitload more to tape all that stuff down.

4) "clearly built for cost" and "not well engineered"? Anything more substantial than your say so?

5) The "wiring overall inside is cheaply done". Again, you know this because?

6) Wow. Your point being?

The HP is engineered to be as cheap to manufacture as possible. The MacBook Pro was engineered for many parameters, but it obviously was not engineered for the lowest cost.